The Sun. — London, England, 1810-06-29 00:00:00

, Xlo=l, I LiiiV REPORT. C`WitT OF IXCL:IIFQUER, ► , vxe 27 'TDB PRINCE OP WALES V ‘:11( JOHN ST. AUBIN AND OTH ERS TJtis WAS an information filed by the Attorney- General ut th... Prince of -Wales, as Duke of Corri;- wall, to compel the clef, ndatos to relinquish the tight . of soil on a part' of the river Tamer, between high and lbw. water mark, wit 're they have effected a wharf other hniidings. The place in dispute ekiined - t?y his Royal Highness, as belonging to' the Duc.!iy of Corn all. It appeared that a lease ot land adjoining the spot in dispute, had been granted fir 99 years (4.vhich included three lives) to S. Tixker, .Esq. Surveyor-General to his Royal Ifte,hness. The eocroachments-Stated to have been ma lc by the defendants on ' the premises of Mr. Tuckt-r, • corrsequently became the foundation of the proceedings which came hi-fore - the Court this day on a demurrer. Toe princil.-al objections w.!re a denial that the Prince of - Vales could proceed by his Attorney-general filing an intO , rnation. This vs descru4ed to be irregular, and not cognizable by J.iw. It was contended that the prop.-r process _was by etectthent, ant that the Prince could only proceed by the law, which every Nobleman was bound to submit to, in support of his claim to. lauded property. Mr. DALLAS, and Mr. W i FTHERALL, who argued in su,,pari Of the demurrer, cited a varieti of ca•es to prove that i the proceedings irregehr. The Court of Exchequer wasstated_ip b..: a Court for the recovery of property sbelo - riging to the CrOwn, and it was argued that a process like the, present, to ,recover the 'claims of the Prince of Wales, coOld not be sustawe'. The SoLICITOR-GENERAL answered t - objet- tons . , and'stated a number of precedenfs tq wove that the Prince of Wales had constantly - suOported his clauirs •as Duke of Corn A all ' by his Attorne y In several reigns, .when the minority of the Prince of Wales had, required protection, the Crown had issued letters patent to empower a per son w'io had been. appointed Attorney-General iolhe Prince, to enforce his clams as Duke of Cornwall, aod in this character that ( - Moor. of his Ito) al High ness's Household had beet received by the Judges. in the reign of James the Firsvtiie. Prince h indi cated his rights through the mediuni of ,his Attor n4-,General. Judge Parke, and all the lawyers of his. Baia, were of Opinion. 61.4 the Prince had a right to 'proceed by his Attorney ; but it appeared riat -Iti , onaries of the prsent day had c-osder ed Judge •Pai ke ignoramus. - .• . rj,ey had disc. vered that toil proceeding was, irr-gular ; bit the Giurt woo:d too aL:ch haste, refuse to abde by the opinions of the great andllktinguished Lawyers ,who. had already determined the question. How were they to adopt preved.ttts, if the most respec table auth , lities were to be denied ?. The Judges who acknowledged the right of the Prince of Wales to proceed by his Attorney-General had btlni t'rong 'in Into, if, the demurrer could he sustained. It was' supoosed that the .interest t loch the lease vested:in heir. 'rocker, hid preyeoted the Prince of Wales from ma - ruining the present process, but .the Prince had an interest in that lease. It was iwid for the benefit of his Royal Highness, who was there kr- entitled to sustain the information. His Royal Highness was bouni, for the interest of the public to see that this property should not be encioached upon. Was there any ground, under these - circuit). - roarces, on t ireh to fiend blame which had been throxii on the Prince's Officers ? Was it not • nroiecned tor the benefit of the public ? Whiv' ,would Love been said it' :Idferent Means had been adopted? • It would have been - Said that •tkvy had abandoned the rights entrusted to their care. He had said thus much to vindicate the honour and clia racter of those constitutional officers who had inter fered in this -proceeding, and to do away any hiea of improper pr , ceediuns, lie wished- to enableevery won to try tai ,• ques!ion - OR the fairest principles, and: to have -it dechted, whether ,the property hi question belonged to an individUal, or wherxr it was not to be prote.led as part of the D,,t.oy of Cornwall. • Sir A. l'ioorr followed on the-same _side, and contended, that if any part (4' the proceeding Was su,tai..ed ky the Court, it would be fatal to the de murrer. Their Lordships had heard a great number of cases which they might consider premature, be cause the Court was not then called on to dt.Feide on the iss to of the claim. The falls were these : his Royal HOmess, the -Prince of Wales derived by the fitly of Henry Abe. Third the grant ,of the wa ters. Ut Tamar, ai hart _of the possessions of the- Duchy of Cornwia: That the defendants had en cr ,ached of .late, years on the soil, by building I.vhar!s on the Tamar, which - belonged to a part of the Duchy of Cornwall, .leased-to Mr. Tucker. .It was with surprise- be • heatd observations- made on the conduct of those who.had instituted. this pro cess, those who were the constitutional advisers of the Prince of Wales, appointed by . ' the Crown to watch the rights of the Duchy. He was surprised to tear some of the topics, 'because an offer had been made to the defendants to give . them a lease of we' soil on which they . had erected their buildings, tree of expellee, on condition that they should give right of soil.- They Ind, hoWever, , refused thi, gift, atul instt-ad of meeting the claim in - a pro per wanner, had sl i.ltered themselves, under - a de insUrrer, which could have no other eded than to increase tr!e expo-flee.- Hp, then contended, in a long sp.:ecii,_ that the Orhects of his Royal Highness had r In a constitui , o •al mode, and that the iniorinit:tou hid been cOoducted with rcqulanty, The Court then rose, and postponed the further heating to:a future day. COURT OF,K.ING'S jpNE 27. s:rrisas 11XFOkE ELLENZOROUGH AT WLST- MINs rta. LI riLE GOES. WALKER V. lILTNI‘LE. Mr. GARROW hoped that the verdi& to be given in tnko.ise, joined : to:the exertions of the Police in ceivel u ig and bringing . to punishment those. persons who 4% , --re 'conCerned in the abotn'cabl43 traffie of Little _Goes, would have ilte- desired etfect ; and woukl go far to cut off ti,e templatiops wh.ch were I al present held tint to servants entrdited with the money of the ;waters; and to. theAvives Of trades men who might Belaying by a little money for the payment of any extraordinary demattd, to embark that mcney in illegal insurances. The regulations late. , ly adoinedlo the drawing of the State L'ttrry, by which.it was alleged, that insuring had been greatly diminished, it .not entirely done away, in conse euence of the drawing being completed in a single day, would be great) frustrated, it inaelices such as those which bad been resorted to by the present de fendant were suffered to exist, and if be and others _in his situation were to be allowed to - pocket the fruits of their own deception, and of the credulity of. their unfortunate viegms. The Plaintiff in this •case was a bricklayer, who had been enabled by his industry to lay by between 801, and• ool..:to meet a demand' which he expe&ed .to come againsi him. When that period, however,. arrived, to his grief and astonish t ent s he found that the money which he flattered himself was ready to satisfy the purpose for which it was intsmded, had been handed over, day after day, by his wile, to the defendant, in the ensuring of certain numbers in a Lottery, or Little Go, in which the defendant, a shoemaker, was c - cerned. 4 This Lovery, unlike the State Lottery, .which was to be drawn in.one day, it was stipulated . should last for 37 days, and, as if even one insurance a day was not sufficient ta satisfy the eagerness of the votaries .of fortune, it was to be drawn twice during each of these days—morning-and evening. Sarah. Cartwright said she was n;ece to the plain . tiff. She insured with the- defendant, at the desire of the plaintiff's wife. The Lottery was to con., tinne for 37 days, - and was. called Warlyr's Go. The plaintiff's wife paid' from 1 1. to 51. at a time. The witness .paid it for her,. or saw her pay it 34 days. The first day she paid only t 2., but afterwards there wtrs no payment; of less than 11. The highest pay ment was 51. This the witness only made once ; afterwards she paid . 3l. and 41. more titan once. She uniformly saw Mr. Bunkle himself, - and the money. was constantly paid to him.. There two G, es . —the Go in the morning waS.cailed Martyr's; that in the afternoon Hodges's:. The wit. ores, had seen her aunt ar both, but could n e t say what suns she paid in Hodrs's Cros examined ,by Mr. Pant!. This transac tioti tollt place about the month of April, !two ; Hodges's Go began a few days after Martyr's finish ed. The Defendant kept ,a private house; she could not say the Little Go was in the room; she , -never saw it ; her aunt did notlake the tvititess for the purpose of enabling herself to recover the money. by the 'present adion ; she expett,..d to have made by the Little Go ; she got papers from the _Defen dant, but the greater part of them had been burn!, .1s she had been informed ; she now produced some. of them ; on being read, the consisted of payments of hits, 'or lucky chances, and of rests or balances to be paid. Sweeps meant the first and last drawn tickets, and G. meant guineas. Again examined by Mr. GAttanw.--To the best of the• witnesi's knowledge there :+vas nob :dy pre sent during the drawing, on : - the tof the foolish adveettirets, to take care of their interest, Crosi-examhped by Mr. PARKE.—HOW she hap pened to know this, she never being present at the drawing? A, Mr. Runkle mei! every clay, a little past twelve o'cicck, to Ming into his parlour a list of tie tick ets drawn, for the information of those in kyr:ring. The Defeedant 'himself explained to the wiin. ss the meaning of the words and letters on.the tickets .pro duced by her. Re-examined by Mr. GARROW.—The witness heard her aunt declare ; iii Mr. Bunkle's presence, that she had lost to him upwards of 801. his answer IA as, that he should have been happy to have paid' her more hits if - she had got them.- This happened about six months ago, and the plaintiff's attorneywas present at the time. Mary Walker, daughter to the plaintiff, • went to the defendaneisomeinnes with her mother; mine times witlioA. her. She - went with her mother six or .sevri times. and her mother paid sometimes 31. or 41.1. The witness herself has paid as much as 31. This, however, she did ( only once., Six or seven times she paid 21. or mire, and about twelve times 11. or more. Sae wen , by herself about 20 times in the whole. Soinet , mes the insurances were fbr, Martyr's, sometimes for Hodges's Goes. The de fendant used to go and fetch the list from some other place. Those which were prizes were marked, and those which were not were left blank. The witness had never one hit., Her's were always blank. She heard her mother, in Bunkle's presence, state her 100 to be Upwards of 801. He did not deny it, but said he would have been happy to pay her, if she bad had hits. Being shewn one of the, lists, she said the letters F. r and L. at two of the numbers, meant - first and last. There were only a few numbers in the list, which the witness said, did not apply to her mailer's numbers - :shine, but ex tended to the whole congregation as3ernbled at the 'defendant's, which occasioned Mr. G,iarrow ,to re mark, that they were fed from band to mouth, t heir lottery not being intended, like the State Lottery, to be drawn in one day. 'Cross-examined by Mr.. PAitEE.—The witness stated she was now turned ofl3, and, of course was not 12 years 1:71d at the date of the transactions in question. She did not know why her tuottier had taken her to the delenclaet's, or, if site had any other reason besideS initiating her in the mysteries of this syst \ em of education. Re-examined by Mr. GARaow.—Her father was a bricklayer, and her mother could not always get out at the proper hour, as-her father was ignorant that his wile saS insuring. Again cross-examined by Mr. PARKE.—The wit ness had heaid from her mother that the Defendant had been arrested at the plaintifFssuit for 401. and upwards. Lucy Cartwright, *other of the first witness, heard the defendant say, he wished the plainta and his wife bad come to him before he had been arrested, and he would have given them 101. or 201. rather than' it should have been done. Mr. Parke advised the witness to remove her daughter from such a school of immorality as speedily as pos sible. Mr. PARKE then addressed the Jury, declaring that he did so under great distress of mind. He really was convinced that the plaintiff's wife appear ed here in a most odious light, and he could not deny thai the defendant's condUft, as it appeafed ',dote the Conn and Jury, was *as 'bad: The Conduct of the. plaintifrs u ife had been roost aboininab!e, in carrying op such transactions in the presence of in fants, who could be there for no other purpose ; if not for the planning of this anion, unless with the wish to. initiate them in these abominable mysteries; He'had no defence for his client. He did not wish hint to escape. But lie cautioned the Jury against being carried away by indignation at his conduct, Their's was not the task of punishing the defen dant, but that of reimbursing the plaintiff for such loss as they saw evidence for believing he had sus tamed. The admission, in presence of all the plain tiff's family, seemed rather singular, but, it the sum paid had actually amounted to Sul. why was the de fendant held to-bail for only 401. • Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, the money paid in this case being for an illegal consideration, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover it back. There was nothing to discredit the witnesses, and the only question was, how much had been paid ?. As to this, the evidence was alt oge the r indefinite, except.as to. an assertion by the plaintiff's wife, not denied by the defendant, that she hod expended 801. ,As justly remarked by the Counsk 1 for the defendant . ) why, if the claim was for The 80i, hold the defendant to bail for 401. ? The plaintiff's own mind should best suggest to him the amount ..f his claim, and the Jury Might tairiy take the plaintiff's own oath in reduCtion of his demand. The Jury, after deliberating for a few minutes, found lcir the plaintitf—Dathageii 401. KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, I UVE. 2,8. Goonwm v.NniiMPTs. ! This was an action for good sold and. delivered. Mr. Ganow- stated, that the plaintiff in this case was a respectable flour-dealeri• residing in Hereford *. shire; 'the defendant .was of the profession (as he supposed he must call. of a,ivxton and grave digger, still he had other emOoPnents; he was a 'salesman and a raiser of pigs.; all .these would not satisfy hiM, and he turned baker.- It was'-not his intention to contend that he carried all of them on .. under the one roof, or that lie went from the new-- made grave the dough tray; his•occtti ainns were too *well known in the neighbourhood where he Hied, Ketitisti Town, to suppose he could get cus tomers for his bread; they were not so fond 01 mix ing the food for the tving, with the day that co vered the dead ; lie was wed aware of this, he took a different house, tie put his son into it,' a man of straw. He, furnishes it, purchases ..the' utensils, pays the rent of the h , use, and the taxes. The next thing necessary was the ; he orders that aloo, and a'terwards pays for it. But when he fiords that that he trade did not prove as !profitable . as -he ex petted, he. shuts up shop, turns his s , on out, and then says to theSe whom he had rece4edflour from, after tlte'.first *that was-sent in He •was ,n•nti 'ac countable ; the business was not his, it had belong- . ed .to his "son, and they'must• sue . fiat it often happened " when.rogues'fell our, that . honest *men got thvir own." the son not being . .WOO at being set adrift, had declared that • litiljtaS . 6e 7 " . .ni0.4 servant of - the defendant,. 'and did'Uot, to receive one shilling of tliep . Lifilu'r:turiately for the plaintiff, the tither and sodhave . .again come ry on terms, and he mi g ht t e ll - a ;ditferenv . sio ;21iir , there was an old proverb, " put ii.begg' frOr`se . back, and he will ride to.the.r/eVilf sp,..with"the son, by being again taken in favour 'by the defen dant:, lie might un,ay what he had betbre declared. The price of ten ba , s of fl ou r wins the cause o f . the present a6tion. Ite would . . prove. that the , de tendant had. been in the habit of ordering- the flour ; that he had paid for some, and thitt he was considered as the,ostensible persOn.- Under those considerations, the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict.' John Elgood proved that he delivered for the twelve bags of flour, at the house of the son, in November, 1806 ; he neser saw the de fendant. • John Peck deposed, that he delivered ten on the following month. Mr. Brazier deposed, that he was a flour Mer chant ; that the defoulant gave him an order for ten bags of-flour, and told him, it his son did not pay 'for them he would—;-the son paid for them. The defendant ordered ten sacks more, which he him self pad for. He did not know any thing of Ile nature of the dealings between the defendant and his son. Tnomasßird, tax-gatherer, proved that the de fendant paid him the rent of the house. Mr. PARK, Counsel for the defendant, contended that -his client, wishing to make an establishment for his son, who had. been just married, took this house - for him, bought the proper utensils for baking; and laid. in FJO sacks of flour to commence with; but he would prove by the young man, that his father never afterwards interfered in the business, and never entered into all agreement for any part" of the profits; because the son •was un fortunate in trade, it would be too severe to make the defendant sutfe4, who only tried to give his son a settlement. • George Hampts, jun. proved this stattment,.. - and the Jury gave a verd.Et for the defendant. • GALE 'V. BRICKFORD.' This was an a6tion to recover 01.- 85. 7d. from the defendant, the Exec:n . 6)l- of. a ars.- 7o'nes; del ceased. It appeared that the defendanthad aitend ed Md. Jones in her last illness as a nurse f0r.13 weeks, and had not received any. remunen:ion. It was proved that the defebdant - ha.d received . assets to a greaser amount than the plaintiff's demand. . The Jury, under the direetion of his Lordship, gave a-verdiet for the plaintiffibr 101. Ss. 7d. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,, JUNE 28. WATER V. MANSELL, BART. This was an action to recover upon an implied 'as sumpsit the sum of 7501. paid, by the plaintiff to the defendant in January, 1793 . ; in considetation of an annuity, to which the defendant pleaded non-assump. sit, the statute of limitations, and a set off. , . Mr. Serjeant LENS, on behalf of the plaintiff,, the annuitant in this case, said, that he would produce such evidence as must lake, that case out of the sta tute of llmitations—evidence that would prove that negociations had been going ou down to tile period at 'Which t h e pi•eent t ttoii commence;. the fendant, Sir \Vtn. Mansell, was in' very embarrassed; cireuinsiances ; tilt• plaintiff wanted either his COw sideration , money back, or that to be wad- good foc i which he lnd contrza to pay_ it. n Thomas Newbury and Charles Jennina.., iubserth ing witnesses to the b on d ,. w h o proved' the hand ., writing of -the defendant in the receipt passed by . him for the consideration-money, as also his siva' ture to the bond. Mr. 'WILLIAMS, the defendant's Solicitor, wa -4 , nest called. H e st a t e d, t h at h e had Lettemployed; by Lady Mansell, the defendant's moth( r, in t 804 i to settle her Son's affairs, wtnch were at that thud considerably deranged ; that he had had a treaty with Mr. Bolton., the plaintiff 'S Solicitor, respcdting annuity, and had offered to give hack the 0 011' . sideratiun-money, together with inter est a t five pit cent:, but that. Mr. Bolton required also the eX pences of the insurance, &c. which the other ft fused. Being asked, whether he had nor : heard that the annuity could be avoided on the groofoleti defeEts in the memorial ? he replied, that tie „o'er had heard any doubts upon that subject till that (UV' Being shewn a passage in one of los own lever:;, is order to refesh his memory, he obs.l-ted, thoi passage referred to the annuitants gvnerany, and per' sisted in his former answer. Mr. BotToN, the. plaintiff's Solicitor, was then called, who - differed materially from the I.4st witt,e,;', and swore that lee understood the ground Of Cite treat!) between him - and Mr. "Williain was, 'dun 0 14 annuity was void. Mr. SerjeaDt. BEST, far the defendant, called ;I ° witnesses, but submitted to the pours, that 111 3 pla . ntilf must, of Ili3'QWll spewing, be noninited.. He did not mean to say, whether the present cave came within the statute ~ r not ; he had gcoc~ de" fence enough without dwelling upon tl at point.' I t . was a ma4im, that no man could take advantage (3t his own laches ; but in case the defect in th e memorializing, the - annuity Was the deflut ('f th e annuitant, whose business it Was :to take cat 'tiP it . the memorial be good and cot.rect. But what proof f . was there that the annuity was void % What pro° was there that his cli , !nt thought it ?Su far 40' proof of this that there had 'been evidence to 0 4 contrary. And Unless the annuity had been avoid; ed, and that th e C ourt h a d, i ud i cial knowle. it was void, he submitted that the annuitant (IA" not claim the' consideration of the contract ra re, funded to him before he had proved the contr itself void. Lord Kenyo n had so ruled in the c e \Veddham v. Lynam - iind Jones, t Eitina.se, S i ' Prius, 309. On this case-he relied and r:sied nonsuit of the plaintiff: Sir JAMES MANSFIELD,- Chief Justice,- ei:)ncur red with the 'deci s i on o f L ord Kenyon in Ihe case cl- ' ,but did not thi n k t h e pr i ncipleof that judg:ment.."P plied to•th e case b e f ore the Court. . It wis saitt.where G:ntlemen 'gave-evidence so contriiC lic i , Cory ;• but he could:not hdp thinking th a t Mr- „ ton?'recollealion see me d to h ave served him beli o than that of th e ot h er witness; and th a t thje a mutual understandin g that the annuity . was He would not, therefore, nonsuit the plaintiff; b.- 0 fallow h,iin to take 'a ve r di ct su bj e c t to the dtct• sl `i ie fof the our on the point reServed.Verd4.4 for --- , 0 1 ' A ATTEMPT Tij COMMiT SUICIDE;--4 ast night, n ~ "° , e , niiVe'o7clock, a y oc iiig worna: i of decent appear°. walked into the water at Blackfriars St idge, - in ii d y liberate manner, and attempted to destivy he r° d The- tide wa s runn in g out, and though slx 1321 waded a considerable distance from the laud' place, the Wat er was not hi gher than lier chin. , 3; this situation/ she th rew h erse lf on her-back, vna '' .nearly drowned, when two watermen picked her 1: She was carri e d t o h er f r i en d s i n W ater-lane, Blac i friars, in a dangerous state, from the, quantity Water-which she had swallowed. Lord CHOLM ONDELEY i s building a beautiful v.' stic j d o 1 cottage on the banks of th e Thank - , a little IY:Y - 0 . Craven Cottage, as a summer retreat for the (-;°° i ! .tes-s, who selected this favourit e s it e . . __.--- hIP CRAVISSND, JUNE 27. Sailed—the ITercules, Fullerton, for Martin:riue. • BliatiS. On Wednesday morning, the Lady of John Griffiths , of Lower Grosvenor-street, of a still-born intant. At Sydenham, tl►e Lady of Ralph Face, Esq. of a L'""' ter. lIIARR I D. Ott Saturtlay last, at Lambeth Church, Mr. Frcw -I Chaproniere, to Miss l ane H u llo , ' only daughter of Eulle, Esq. late of Holloway. The same day, Mr. W..T. Smith, of Clement's.la nct Miss Hall, of Bermondsey • On Monday morning, at Ennis, "by a special licem Liam Daxon finucane, Esq. to I%liss Sitred, of Enni-.- , jett• On the 27 th inst. at Eastliarnstead Chur,:h, Berks. „; tti c tenant-General Brownrigg, Quarter-master-General or.ic..of Forces, to Miss Sophia Bissett, of Knighton-House, Wight. 0, The• same day, at Sa wston , F ranc i s Cannir.g, ts4,,i. Foxcote,•in the Cou nt y o f W arw i c k' , to lane, dintAt'h,nt'l the late Ferdinand Huddleston, of Sawston in the of Cambridge. flrt~r f On Thursday, at St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, Mr. Marshall, of Orchard-street, Bristol, to Miss- S. L. re ton, eldest daughter of Mr. Thowas Charlton, of the A 11 gative-Oflice, ire Dodtors',Comm,ta,. At Glanm Church, near Cork, Robert Nerventram. ec„, son of Major Newenham, and nephew to William ‘V • 1 : 1 0 0 enham, Esq. or Coolniore, to l ane ,. y oungest d:a/l; 1 ;' Edward Hoare,. Esq. of Factory-hill. tV~~' . . . . O •• n Tuesday tile sth ins t . a° .at Newport, in the t Mayo,'hi the 22er year of his age, Neal O'Do“el,. P ll w ri) of the. late John O'Donel, Esq. of that town,•za4 .Sir Neal O'Donel, Bart. ' • • r• se On the 24th inst. in his 65th year, Arth u r COsens , " of Yetnainster, Dorset. In.ttie morning he attedded the .t vice in the Cathedral at Wells; where . 11e;was,oli ' 6 ' l9. 0 - i ° ll l near relative, and whilst at dinner fell f rom hi s chair, stantly expired. ob 0 F• On Wednesday last, at Clifton, aged 2 2 , ; Wells, Esq. eldest son of Vice-Admiral IN The same day, in kpitherstone, I-3olhorn , In i7tlt year, Mary Ann lane, eldest daughter of Peter Esq. of Dedham, Essex. • j ►'lt t , 0 Yst r: Bank Steck, 259 i • Navy 5 per Cent. shut . Irish 5 per Cent. 4 per k..cnt, 84i *. 3 per Cent. 14..‘d. 69 6 6 6 per Cent. Cons. shut sank L. Ann. IS j-if:thsi RD A Y. India Stock, India tss. tbs. Prc,f, Excheq. Is. r ()minium, pr. Impe:iai 3 per Cent. , Cow:. 1;)! Opeoihg, 7,t 6". 1(4N;)ON: Pripteu uy KIE:HARD HARRIS, o/ No. 4, Martlett-court, How-street and rrblisned by WILLIAM A RMIGER SCRIPPS, South Molton street, GraFvenot tquarg, 4t,. gift kiliN. , Orricz, No, 112, Strand, whire ildvertisenents, Orders for tae rap r, 4,eitr.rs_for the Editor, atc. ipost-ptria), imst bo addre:.-7sed, ~~~